ArticleBMC palliative care2026
Policy gaps regarding social homecare in the context of end-of-life; a policy document analysis.
Article in BMC palliative care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- "We don't get asked": including people with workforce experience as public contributors in a workforce-related study about homecare work towards the end-of-life.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Supporting homecare workers to provide palliative and end-of-life care: A scoping review of interventions and their implementation.Palliative care and social practice · 2026Article
- Addressing barriers to interprofessional working with homecare workers in community palliative care: Insights from a multi-site qualitative case study.Palliative medicine · 2026Article
- Co-production with marginalised workers: working with homecare workers and managers caring for people approaching end-of-life.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSocial homecare workers (personal aides/assistants) are crucial for people wishing to receive end-of-life care at home.
aimTo determine current UK social care policy priorities and gaps regarding end-of-life care provision by homecare workers, including support and training for this workforce.
designPolicy document review and content analysis; eligible documents were current UK policy documents informing homecare worker practice/service delivery, identified by team expertise, networks, study partners and bibliography review of included documents. We quantified (existence, frequency) predetermined codes of interest in relation to end-of-life/palliative/care of the dying/bereavement, homecare workforce, and support and training. Where homecare worker codes were contextually situated, we extracted and tabulated the surrounding text and examined for reference to training and support. We subjected extracted text content to framework analysis through the lens of Bronfenbrenner's Adapted Ecological Systems Theory.
resultsOne thousand, four hundred and sixty-four homecare worker codes were identified in the 36 included documents, but only 72 times/17 documents in the context of end-of-life care. In the context of end-of-life care and homecare workers, education and training codes were present 3 and 35 times respectively. The need for end-of-life education and training was recognised, but in general, little detail about delivery and implementation was given (e.g., whose responsibility; funding; minimum standard and content).
conclusionsThe homecare worker role in end-of-life care is poorly recognised in national policy. Little guidance is provided regarding minimum training standards or delivery. Given an ageing population globally and expected increased demand for end-of-life homecare, national and international policy guidance should include this workforce.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.